Why I'm an omnivore.

Vegans and non-vegans alike are welcome.
Post an intro here first to have your account authenticated by a mod, then you'll be able to post anywhere.
Even if you're here to lurk, please drop a short intro post here to let us know you're not a spammer so you aren't accidentally deleted.

Forum rules
Please read the full Forum Rules
User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8943
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Re: Why I'm an omnivore.

Post by brimstoneSalad » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:45 pm

ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
When I talk about psychological egoism, I'm saying that what choice we make inevitably is a choice we make because it is a thing we value.
OK, that's not the definition we use on this forum.

Contrast egoism and altruism for a better understanding. I do not contest that we act in accordance with our values, but those values can be purely self interested (as in creating pleasure [be it sensory or emotional/internal] for oneself) or directed outside (whether to others, or to general principles).

We're usually talking about psychological hedonism, since psychological egoism that isn't also psychological hedonism is very vague and poorly defined. Experienced pleasure/pain is pretty clear.

See also: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egoism/
All forms of egoism require explication of “self-interest” (or “welfare” or “well-being”). There are two main theories. Preference or desire accounts identify self-interest with the satisfaction of one's desires. Often, and most plausibly, these desires are restricted to self-regarding desires. What makes a desire self-regarding is controversial, but there are clear cases and counter-cases: a desire for my own pleasure is self-regarding; a desire for the welfare of others is not.
If you make egoism so broad as to include all desires, including altruistic ones, any distinction becomes meaningless. That's not how we use the word here.

If you want to argue over the definition of egoism, maybe you can start another thread on it?
Otherwise, how about we just agree that yes people act in accordance to their values, and some values are hedonistic, some non-hedonistically self interested, and some are other directed. The point is that altruistic interests are possible, and people don't just act that way by expecting a reward from it that optimally fulfills self interest.

You could try to stretch the definition of self interest to include an interest in fulfilling a concept of self as a good person or something, but that's not very useful again because it breaks down the distinction and other terms are subsumed by egoism being all encompassing. The important point for the sake of this conversation is only that not all interests are hedonistic (how we usually use it here) since other notions of self interest are pretty vague.
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
So I may not be saying it makes me happy to see my family happy, I may be saying I value my family being happy.
As long as you agree that you value your family actually being happy, and not just you believing your family is/will be happy.
If you don't think there's a difference between the two, that's a problem.
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
I honestly think you are describing psychological hedonism, a specific subset of psychological egoism. If you show me that what I'm describing is incompatible with psychological egoism in its entirety, I'll label it something else.
It usually means psychological hedonism, because anything outside that is very vague as I said and not clearly defined (or necessarily clearly definable).
But as I showed above, non-hedonistic psychological egoism vaguely excludes values that are not self-interested. It's not productive to define "self-interested values" so broadly as to incorporate all possible values.
Please either stick to meaning psychological hedonism when you say psychological egoism, or restrain the notion of those self-interested values to something plausible. At least on this forum (again, unless you want to make a thread arguing the details).
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
But I don't agree with you, that operant conditioning is the strongest of inferences, in fact, I'm very far in the opposite direction.
That's completely absurd.
How could you think that something like classical conditioning (e.g. salivating when a bell rings) is a stronger inference than operant conditioning?
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
I think operant conditioning as a model does not need consciousness or moves us closer to it in any way, and I don't understand, other than your tautological definition of it, how you think it does.
I explained this in some detail. I will explain it yet again, but please take care to read carefully and engage with my argument this time.

In order to LEARN to use a device, the simplest explanation is that the creature has some notion of what the device is and what it does when acted upon in a certain way. This knowledge is consciousness (defined in any meaningful way), maybe not of anything else, but at least of that device and the limbs (or whatever) manipulate it. Further, when the creature chooses to manipulate the device to achieve certain ends, that is intentionality giving evidence for a desire -- at least for something that device does or is achieved by operating it, if not for anything else.

You could speculate that these actions don't give evidence for any of those things, but if you do then the same kind of speculation applies to all learned and complex behavior all the way up to learning language and writing this post. The difference is the same as that between "micro" and "macro" evolution, and the ignorance and hypocrisy of accepting the former and denying the latter is identical.

Denying the consciousness and interests of animals capable of operant conditioning is no less irrational than asserting solipsism and denying the same to humans because there's no reason to believe that whatever magical non-conscious process powers the lesser activity can't power the greater by just taking more steps.
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
2) One takes in stimuli, such as a pain nerve, the brain associates other sensory information to that pain nerve, the brain develops a new pattern of behavior. (Operant conditioning) This is not consciously experienced.
The last statement there is just an unfalsifiable assertion based on magical thinking, and a magical notion of what you think consciousness is -- one completely inaccessible to reason or empirical analysis.
You're on par with bad theistic logic here, probably worse because you're using this as a justification to deny the fact of animal suffering and further promote it. Even most theists recognize the problems of animal suffering even if they don't believe they have "souls".
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
Now, you want to say the first one is *more likely*. Why?
Look, you can be a consciousness denialist if you want, and as long as it's applied across the board that can be a reasonable position (maybe "consciousness" in the philosophical sense is just meaningless drivel and nobody is), but there's no reason to ascribe something magical to humans when the same basic properties operate in non-humans to lesser degrees.
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
Is it because you think a conscious experience of something is *required* for a behavioral change? If so, why do you believe that? Do you not think we develop behavioral changes without conscious experiences?
I already explained this, please stop strawmanning my position.

You can see behavioral changes that could be purely reflexive through classical conditioning, like associating certain stimuli through simple associative learning (salivating when you hear a bell). Operant conditioning is more complicated and involves a link between behavior and consequence with feedback (lacking in classical conditioning) that promotes intentional action in so far as anything can be called intentional. It's the basis of true learning. We even have computer models for how this works, and there's no reason to believe that humans are anything magical beyond that.

You can try to deny that this is anything special too, but as I said unless you are using the same bad reasoning that magically differentiates micro and macro evolution then rationally such a denial applies across the board and negates human "consciousness" as meaningless too.
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
1) You think that regardless of the ethical argument for veganism, there is still an ethical argument for the environment that doesn't depend on it.
Without SOMEBODY to suffer the consequences, there is no ethical environmental argument.
Did you not understand that point?
Even just humans suffering the consequences can make an environmental argument, but something has to suffer the change.

The environmental argument relies on something suffering.
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
If it were truly the case there was a mock meat for every meat product that was better in terms of efficiency and that I truly couldn't notice the difference, then I can see the case for not eating the less efficient option. Heck, I'd even replace individual meats if truly there was no difference to be had and what you said was true, and it could be the case that I'm ignorant to these options, and my awareness of them would satisfy the environmental aspect for me.
Have you tried the impossible burger? The Beyond Burger? Have you tried the non-dairy Ben&Jerry? Etc.

Also, why do you need to not notice the difference? Different is not bad, and it's something we can adjust to very quickly. It doesn't mean sustained pain or discomfort.

Can't you just accept that the new option is also delicious, even if you can taste the difference, but that because it's also delicious you don't suffer a loss?
It's delicious so satisfies your hedonistic interests, and it's also rich in protein which satisfies nutritional needs. Why would you not choose this option? It's also very likely that these mock meat options and healthier and so you'll be less likely to experience pain or early death in the future.

It's more rational in every way to choose the better alternative.
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
Here's why the difference in meta-ethics and normative ethics matter:

They can entirely be mixed and matched. One can be a moral nihilist non-cognitivist and say "I think people have values and preferences, I think these values and preferences have conflicts, and I think there are better solutions than others." These may not be "better" in a moral sense, but more prefered (descriptive ethics). One may think the best path towards this would be deontological:[...]
Just because people can say they hold certain special positions doesn't mean those positions are consistent.

A Christian can say he or she takes the bible literally (a literalist) and doesn't believe homosexuality is a sin. So many positions to mix and match!
Doesn't mean that particular combination is credible.

Certain kinds of normative ethics can be deduced from certain kinds of metaethical positions, and likewise the necessary metaethical foundation can be deduced from certain normative models.

It may not always be a perfect function for all positions (there might be two options one way or another, and sometimes there's no compatible option), but that doesn't mean there aren't positions that are necessary correlates and that have clear cognitive non-subjective definitions of morality that apply across the broad.
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
I'm at odds, specifically, with the meta-ethical theories.
Then just talk about normative ethics, and we can work up from there (or down).
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
Also, don't take noncognitivism as "You can't change my mind, so there". It's like my position on atheism, I'm not telling you that God doesn't exist, I'm telling you I have no reason to believe in it.
In that case, I think you mean to say you're an agnostic error theorist, not a non-cognitivist.
Non-cogntivism is more assertive about semantics, error theory is skeptical that there is a fact to the matter at all but is willing to trust people when they say they're trying to express facts (an error theorist is just doubtful that there is a fact to express).
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
Now, that's not to say I think every value or preference is classified as a "moral problem". I think it's a particular subset of values, specifically, ones that cause confliction. Where as, no one has a problem with what icecream flavor I want, people will in fact find conflict if I wanted to steal their stuff. But I think these are all values and preferences in the end.
The existence of values in the minds of others is an objective fact, not subjective. The state of values conflicting is also an objective fact.

Subjective morals are more like "I feel this therefore this", and objective moral fact can be "Person A and person B have conflicting values" and the understanding that morality is quantified by degree of conflict. Value dissonance is negative on the moral scale, value harmony is positive. That's a perfectly objective moral system, and it's cognitive.
ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:33 pm
I'm not a mind-body dualist. I really need to know what you think intentionality even is.
What do you think it is? Can you answer my question about wants? I think I asked first.

ShadowStarshine
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:25 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by ShadowStarshine » Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:03 pm

The amount of differences in our views is perhaps too large to do over this method, would you be up for voice chatting on discord or something?

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8943
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:59 pm

ShadowStarshine wrote:
Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:03 pm
The amount of differences in our views is perhaps too large to do over this method, would you be up for voice chatting on discord or something?
You're welcome to join the discord to text chat: https://discord.gg/egKkup
I'm not usually online, though, and when I am I can't usually do voice.

Perhaps you could choose one subject of disagreement that you want to focus on?

ShadowStarshine
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:25 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by ShadowStarshine » Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:12 pm

I joined the server, same name. I'm generally online, so just DM me when you see me.

ShadowStarshine
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:25 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by ShadowStarshine » Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:29 pm

Just a friendly reminder, I'm on discord as Shadow Starshine, please feel free to message me, or drop your discord name here, and we can go over all the points.

User avatar
brimstoneSalad
neither stone nor salad
Posts: 8943
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 9:20 am
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by brimstoneSalad » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:37 pm

ShadowStarshine wrote:
Thu Oct 11, 2018 4:29 pm
Just a friendly reminder, I'm on discord as Shadow Starshine, please feel free to message me
I did, we already started a chat.

ShadowStarshine
Newbie
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Sep 15, 2018 1:25 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Meat-Eater

Post by ShadowStarshine » Fri Oct 12, 2018 11:51 pm

lmao why didn't you tell me who you were then! Garrrr. Okay, let's talk on there.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests